I would not be surprised..

That Iran’s claim that the desperate pussies in the Obama administration are again acting like the pussies collectivist tend to always be, and then for clearly craven political reasons, is absolutely true. This administration is going to eventually be seen, when the historians finally actually get to look at the things they did, as one of the biggest failures ever. No amount of revisionist history, media cover for their fellow collectivists, or even sycophantic pandering by people willing to line up and suck Obama cock, just because of their “My Team,” feelings, will change that reality. They are desperate for something – anything – to show they are not the abject failures they are. Hence the constant stupidity and the dangerous display of absolute incompetence and weakness that leads to things like this. yeah, I bet they are begging Iran for a bone. Any bone.

I am going to rub it in. Back when the fucking leftards were telling us all how stupid Boosh’s cowboy diplomacy was and that what we needed was mature and capable collectivists to take over to fix things, I pointed out this was all bullshit. Leftards suck at foreign policy precisely because they hold such a high opinion of themselves that they believe they can do not just the improbable, but the impossible. Most people don’t remember the incompetence of the Carter years. Carter thought his good intentions and his willingness to do what feelers on the left think is the right thing would garner him the support of people not just with their own agenda, but of evil people. That’s why he was so butt-hurt when the Russians went into Afghanistan. Brezhnev had after all promised him that the USSR wouldn’t do that! Carter was a moron. And the bulk of people that share his idiotic and naive beliefs – which pretty much amounts to all collectivists and the democratic party as a singular entity these days – world view are always going to not only be surprised by the wolves in sheep’s clothing, but end up on the short end of any deal. Always.

Obama however has been far worse than Carter was. His administration has not only been more than willing to drop to their knees to suck the cocks of people that are clearly our enemies, but they have treated our allies, especially those that were considered our closest ones, with scorn and disdain on top of that. I have said it before and will say it again: At the risk of insulting amateurs, this administration’s foreign policy, and for that matter anything else other than their agenda to destroy the country, is amateur hour at the freak show. Not that these idiots will ever get called on it until long from now when historian take a look at the shit that went down and the damage it has caused will we finally understand how bad they were/are.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    “How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men. . . . What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. . . . The laws of probability would dictate that part of . . . [the] decisions would serve the country’s interest.”

    http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-american-politics/

    Thumb up 0

  2. Iconoclast

    Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.

    Indeed, and in the case of McCarthy, it turns out that he was right — we did have soviet spy rings in our government, quite possibly including Alger Hiss, as the declassified Venona documents suggest.

    Thumb up 9

  3. CM

    “One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates “evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.

    Paranoid writing begins with certain broad defensible judgments. There was something to be said for the anti-Masons. After all, a secret society composed of influential men bound by special obligations could conceivable pose some kind of threat to the civil order in which they were suspended. There was also something to be said for the Protestant principles of individuality and freedom, as well as for the nativist desire to develop in North America a homogeneous civilization. Again, in our time an actual laxity in security allowed some Communists to find a place in governmental circles, and innumerable decisions of World War II and the Cold War could be faulted.

    The higher paranoid scholarship is nothing if not coherent—in fact the paranoid mind is far more coherent than the real world. It is nothing if not scholarly in technique. McCarthy’s 96-page pamphlet, McCarthyism, contains no less than 313 footnote references, and Mr. Welch’s incredible assault on Eisenhower, The Politician, has one hundred pages of bibliography and notes. The entire right-wing movement of our time is a parade of experts, study groups, monographs, footnotes, and bibliographies.”

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Yes, all detail notwithstanding. So long as there were a few, his obsession and widespread unsupported scatter-gun damaging accusations were ‘right’. Nice ‘certain broad defensible judgment’ there. Entirely ‘coherent’.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Iconoclast

    Yes, all detail notwithstanding.

    As if you’d know…

    So long as there were a few…

    There are a couple of ways to amswer this:

    1. There were more than “a few”.

    2. You only need “a few” to do real damage anyway.

    Either way, it’s arguable that the only reason the soviets even had a nuclear program was because of all the secrets being siphoned off of our programs through the various spy networks.

    …his obsession and widespread unsupported scatter-gun damaging accusations were ‘right’.

    Nice equivocation there. What I orginally said was that he was right about there being spy netwotks in our government.

    Nice ‘certain broad defensible judgment’ there. Entirely ‘coherent’.

    Based on your equivocation, of course. So, nice straw man there — entirely disingenuous.

    Thumb up 2